( we've always known American election attack ads were bad but this one was way over the top , claims the republican's supporters were confederates who run down minority children with there pick up trucks ? )

On 'Fox & Friends,' the Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate reacts to a Democratic ad implying his supporters are Confederates who attack minority kids.

Democratic candidate for Virginia governor Ralph Northam is not distancing himself from the controversial ad suggesting supporters of Republican candidate Ed Gillespie are seen as Confederates who attack minority children.

The new opposition ad titled “American Nightmare” was released Monday by Democratic group Latino Victory Fund (LVF) and is scheduled to run through Election Day. The opposition ad shows minority children seemingly being chased by a driver in a pickup truck, decked out with a Confederate flag, a “Gillespie for governor” bumper sticker and a “Don’t tread on me” license plate.

The driver makes his way toward the scared children who shout, “Run! Run! Run!” when they see the truck. The ad concludes with a scene of a Charlottesville-like rally, with a narrator asking: “Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the ‘American Dream?’”

Ed Gillespie and Donald Trump promise the American dream, but can only deliver an American nightmare. No more. Vote @RalphNortham. #GameOnVA pic.twitter.com/mwpWXM47HZ
— Latino Victory (@latinovictoryus) October 30, 2017

Northam’s campaign told Fox News Tuesday that the ad was “not shocking” based on Gillespie’s campaign.

“Independent groups are denouncing Ed Gillespie because he has run the most divisive, fear-mongering campaign in modern history,” Northam campaign spokeswoman Ofirah Yheskel said in a statement to Fox News. “It is not shocking that communities of color are scared of what his Trump-like policy positions mean for them.”

But Gillespie said the ad was “an attack on” his “supporters,” whom

he calls “good decent hardworking Virginians who love their neighbors.”

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR RACE: WHO ARE ED GILLESPIE AND RALPH NORTHAM?

“The fact is, whether you disagree with people or not, in Virginia, we respect civil discourse and this is a new low in politics here. It’s a sad day,” Gillespie said on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday. “I was glad when a couple of the Democratic members of our House Delegates yesterday condemned the ad, but outrageously my opponent has embraced it, and it reveals a disdain not just for more supporters but for all Virginians, frankly, who want to have a discussion about issues and policies in this election that I’ve been focused on.”

Gillespie added: “They [Northam campaign] don’t want to debate the issues, and instead of debating the issues, they just demonize, they vilify, they marginalize anyone who disagrees with them.”

NorthamGillespie

Ed Gillespie, right, said that Ralph Northam, left, is embracing the controversial ad released by LVF. (AP)

In a statement to Fox News, Gillespie’s campaign manager Chris Leavitt called the latest ad part of “a desperate smear campaign” against Gillespie.

“This is no an attack on Ed Gillespie anymore. This is an all-out attack on the people of Virginia,” Leavitt told Fox News. “This latest ad gives us a clear indication of just what Ralph Northam and his national Democratic allies think of all of us, and it’s sickening.”

The LVF ad is not the only one drawing significant criticism in this gubernatorial race.

Northam’s campaign came under fire after a Democratic mailer showing Gillespie and Trump, along with a photo of white nationalists carrying torches in another Charlottesville-like scene. The mailer encourages voters to “stand up to hate.”

Northam has stood by the mailer and slammed Gillespie for not denouncing the president “for not calling these white supremacists out for who they are.”

“Because the message is that we live in a very diverse society. That means that we need to be inclusive,” Northam said, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“The Lieutenant Governor [Northam] was roundly rebuked for exploiting imagery from the tragedy of Charlottesville for political points,” Leavitt said. “Now his allies have reached a new low with a disgusting, vile television ad seeking to instill fear in our children with that same imagery.”

Gillespie has also been criticized for ads that attempt to tie Northam to the MS-13 gang. One ad accuses Northam of being “weak” on combating the gang.

Northam, who is currently the lieutenant governor of Virginia, has had a star-studded roster of Democratic guests on the campaign trail, including former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a fundraiser in New York earlier this month headlined by Hillary Clinton.

Gillespie, on the other hand, has had Vice President Pence with him on the campaign trail, and a fundraiser hosted by President George W. Bush. Gillespie has been endorsed by President Trump, who repeatedly expresses his support for the Republican candidate on Twitter.

On 'Fox & Friends,' the Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate reacts to a Democratic ad implying his supporters are Confederates who attack minority kids.

A television ad depicting supporters of Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Ed Gillespie as Confederates who attack children of color has been pulled in the wake of the terror attack in New York City.

The Democratic group Latino Victory Fund removed the controversial ad, which showed a pickup truck driver chasing down children of color on Tuesday, Oct. 31.

“We knew our ad would ruffle feathers. We held a mirror up to the Republican Party, and they don’t like what they see. We have decided to pull our ad at this time,” said Cristobal J. Alex, president of the LVF, in a statement on Twitter Tuesday evening.

“Given recent events, we will be placing other powerful ads into rotation that highlight the reasons we need to elect progressive leaders in Virginia.”

The statement was released just hours after investigators said the suspected driver, identified as 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov, plowed a rented pickup truck into a crowd in Lower Manhattan. The incident, being treated as a terror attack, left at least eight dead and at least 11 others injured.

The ad was released on Monday and was expected to run through Election Day.

Gillespie denounced the ad Tuesday morning in an interview with “Fox & Friends.”

“This attack is not just an attack on my supporters, it’s an attack on all Virginians. The fact is, whether you disagree with people or not, in Virginia, we respect civil discourse and this is a new low in politics here. It’s a sad day,” Gillespie said.

In a statement to Fox News, Gillespie’s campaign manager called the ad a “desperate smear campaign.”

Fascinating how Canadians think our politics are "purer" than American politics when what they really mean is that the elites are more powerful and narrower in Canada.

The pretence that "attack ads" are a breach of good taste is a preposterous pose. They actually serve the purposes of the election better than the blander, more institutional ads do. Why? Because they identify and sharpen the real issues. They are actually closer to 'rational debate' than the stock ads, which basically try to associate a party with a set of emotions through repeated applications.

There is a practical point where images and sounds become repellant, and of course, that should be avoided. The best attack ads, after all, work on a negative feeling that is widely felt but rarely expressed. They may be negative or critical feelings and criticism that are stifled in public discussion. They lurk just below the surface, but they already exist and one of their effects is in showing the public how many other people feel that way. Most people follow the herd.

There's a lot of things in our society that really require some attack ads, and would be improved by having to defend themselves. All the sacred cows, like feminism, are protected from incisive criticism by the sludge of political correctness, and the difficulty we Canadians have in being the first one to speak up.

I don't even think this is an attack ad. It's more like a slander ad. It does what the exponents of political correctness regularly do -- it tries to mobilize shame on the other side without confronting the issues.

A big part of the craziness in the Excitable States of America is putting over the idea that Donald Trump is an incompetent billionaire who's probably involved with Putin in some dastardly sell-out of America ... and the trubble is ... (I don't know how to say this) ... it turns out that this is exactly what Obama, Clinton, et. al. have been doing for the last eight years. (You do know about the uranium sale?)

Let me say this -- trigger warning, some people are going to find this a little too "plain" in terms of plain talk. But it is is becoming horrifyingly apparent that: the first black President ran the most corrupt administration of our lifetimes!

This is minimal damage report on the corruption: the US Department of Justice, the FBI, the IRS, and CIA and such agencies have been corrupted. It could be broader, and include the EPA and other parts of the bureaucracy. It's a huge problem. It might require as big a purge as was required during McCarthy's time.

There must be lots of powerful Washington figures worried about doing jail time as a result of Hillary's defeat.

Ralph Northam's campaign has ties to the group behind the controversial ad showing an apparent Ed Gillespie supporter chasing down minority children in his truck.

Ralph Northam's campaign has ties to the group behind the controversial ad showing an apparent Ed Gillespie supporter chasing down minority children in his truck. (YouTube/AP)

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam’s campaign is being accused of playing a role in a controversial ad that was pulled last week, as disclosure forms reveal ties to the political group behind the incendiary commercial – though the Democrat’s campaign denies it.

The ad shows a Confederate-flag-flying pickup truck with a bumper sticker for Northam's opponent, Republican Ed Gillespie, chasing down and cornering several Hispanic and Muslim children in a dark alley. The ad sparked outrage as Gillespie and others condemned it for falsely portraying his supporters as violent racists, ahead of Tuesday’s gubernatorial election.

A group called Latino Victory Fund created the ad but pulled it after a terrorist reportedly shouting "Allahu Akbar" murdered eight people in New York City using a pickup truck.

Northam distanced his campaign from the ad, telling WAVY-TV, "That commercial did not come from our campaign. It certainly is not a commercial that I would have wanted to run."

But disclosure forms suggest the Northam campaign may have been involved, as the Northam campaign reported a $62,729.60 "in-kind" contribution in the form of "media" from the Latino Victory Fund shortly after the ad came out. Under Virginia law, a media contribution is "in-kind" only if the campaign worked with the outside group on the ad.

"...the candidate or an agent of the candidate's campaign committee must have either expressly requested or suggested... that the expenditure be made," a Virginia government guidebook describing the law reads, "or... have material involvement in devising the strategy, content, means of dissemination, or timing of the expenditure."

But Northam spokeswoman Ofirah Yheskel told Fox News that, despite the disclosure, the campaign had nothing to do with the ad.

Former Virginia governor George Allen weighs in.
Video

Polls show tight race for Virginia governor

"The Northam campaign did not authorize the ad nor did it see the ad before it was released," she said in a statement, adding that, "Ralph Northam would not have run this ad and believes Virginians deserve civility, not escalation."

About the disclosure documents, she said it was only reported that way because the campaign worked with Latino Victory Fund in other ways: "In Virginia, groups must report in-kinds for activities like canvassing and data-sharing. Because there are no independent expenditures, and Latino Victory Fund has been sharing data with us, they had to report any activity involving the election as an in-kind."

But Kerpen noted that it was the Northam campaign, not Latino Victory Fund, that labelled the ad as an in-kind contribution -- a fact that can be confirmed on the Virginia Department of Elections website -- and said the group's other activities like canvassing have nothing to do with how the ad would be treated in disclosure forms.

Yheskel did not respond to a follow-up question about the fact that the disclosure came from Northam's campaign.

Kerpen also challenged Yheskel's explanation of the law, saying, "If Northam had not coordinated on the expenditure, they would have filed nothing related to it" -- since it would not have been an "in-kind" contribution under the law.

Could the Northam campaign have simply made the disclosure by mistake, thinking they had to do so because they worked with the group in other ways?

"No chance they filed by mistake -- they would have said so and corrected immediately," Kerpen said, decrying the ad as “race-baiting.”

Latino Victory Fund did not respond to questions about any coordination with the Northam campaign.

It will be interesting. Gillespie was 15 points behind six weeks ago. He is an old-line Republican but as the campaign has progressed he has moved on to Trump's issues-- immigration, tax cuts, etc. Whether that's the reason or not, the race has tightened, and they are now describing it as close.

The questionable ad was probably a measure of the Democrat's desperation. I have read a couple of places that if the Dems lose in Virginia, it will start a civil war within the Democrat Party, particularly on the heels of Donna Brazile's new book.

Virginia is one of only two states that have off-year governor's races on Election Day 2017. Here's why the Virginia race is getting national attention and how the "Trump effect" could impact the battle between Republican Ed Gillespie and Democrat Ralph Northam.

With the election just a day away, Democrat Ralph Northam holds a five-point edge over Republican Ed Gillespie in the close race to succeed Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe.

That’s according to a Fox News Poll of Virginia likely voters conducted Thursday through Sunday evenings.

poll 1
Northam’s advantage is at the poll’s 2.5 percentage-point margin of sampling error. Last month he had a 7-point lead (49-42 percent, October 15-17, 2017).

Nearly all Northam (94 percent) and Gillespie supporters (91 percent) are certain of their vote choice and both candidates receive strong backing from their party faithful (93 percent of Democrats and 91 percent of Republicans respectively).

Independents are a mixed bag, as nearly one-third favors the Democrat, one-third backs the Republican, and another one-third backs the libertarian or is undecided.

Northam is favored by blacks by 79 points (86-7 percent), moderates by 32 (55-23), voters with graduate degrees by 30 (61-31), women by 20 (56-36), and those with a college degree by 18 (54-36).

poll 2
READ THE FULL POLL RESULTS

The key groups preferring Gillespie include conservatives by 59 points (76-17 percent), white evangelical Christians by 57 (73-16), whites without a college degree by 43 (67-24), and men by 9 (49-40).

Gillespie is also the pick for veterans by 20 points (55-35 percent), despite the fact that Northam is an Army vet.

poll 3
By far, the economy (24 percent) and health care (24 percent) are the top two concerns for voters. Those prioritizing health care back Northam by 49 points (69-20 percent). Economy voters go for Gillespie by a narrower 25-point spread (58-33 percent).

Meanwhile, voters are more likely to blame Gillespie for how ugly the race has gotten: 50 percent say he has attacked Northam unfairly, while 39 percent say the Democrat made unfair attacks.

By a seven-point margin, McAuliffe is also viewed positively (43 percent favorable vs. 36 percent unfavorable), while President Trump is in negative territory by 15 (40-55 percent).

Fully 88 percent of voters who view Trump favorably back Gillespie, while 81 percent of those who have a negative view support Northam.

Interest in the election is a tad bit higher among Democrats, as 48 percent say they are extremely interested compared to 44 percent among Republicans.

Northam is favored by majorities of both those who are extremely interested (52 percent) as well as those who are certain of their vote choice (53 percent).

Conflict between neo-Nazi protesters and counter-protesters on August 12 led to deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Confederate monuments and statues were a campaign issue in the wake of that conflict.

A 60 percent majority of Virginia voters agrees with Gillespie that Confederate monuments should remain in place. However, that isn’t the decisive factor for his voters, as just 64 percent of those wanting the monuments to stay up support Gillespie. By comparison, 92 percent of those wanting them to be taken down favor Northam.

Nearly half of Virginia voters live in a gun-owner household. They back Gillespie by 23 points, while Northam has a larger 38-point advantage among non-gun owners.

A tight race is hardly a surprise, as the Old Dominion State has been a swing state in recent years. Even so, Democrats have been on a bit of a roll. Hillary Clinton won Virginia in the 2016 presidential election, and Barack Obama won the state in both 2012 and 2008.

The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). The poll was conducted November 2-5, 2017, by telephone (landline and cellphone) with live interviewers among a sample of 1,239 voters selected from a statewide voter file in Virginia. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points for the full sample of likely voters.

I have read a couple of places that if the Dems lose in Virginia, it will start a civil war within the Democrat Party, particularly on the heels of Donna Brazile's new book.

If Northam loses despite being up as much as he was and after outspending Gillespie by around 10m, there are going to be some hard questions being asked around the DNC.

Its one thing to try and justify away losses in the special elections around the country as being in "GOP Stronghold" or taking moral victories in the fact that Jon Ossoff almost won till he lost

But if they start losing ground that was suppose to be fairly safe, then all of a sudden the approach over the last year starts being questioned and usually someone gets blamed.

However, I put a GOP pick up in Virginia as a longer shot.

if the democrat wins or not , this election might signal that 2018 and 2020 elections will remain very competitive between the democrats and republicans as they normally are . if the democrats somehow though they were going to suddenly run away with every election on the basis trump was unpopular , that many have been a fantasy not based in the political reality of modern day American politics

Virginia also hasn't had many republican governors other than a few short stints in the 90's and 2010 . so a democratic hold in a state they normally win wouldn't be that unusual .
Virginia has also swung more democratic in senate and presidential races as the population has grown in the northern more liberal areas near Washington DC .

The problem for the Democrats is if they abandon their anti-Trump progressive stance, what do they have left?

They have reflexively painted their opposition as a bunch of crazies for decades. That have doubled their usual efforts with Trump. You can see this in the aura of meanings that surround the concept of "right wing". What are the first associations that come to mind when you say "right wing"? Or, as they often say, "hard right"?

The right is associated with the Nazis, but in the North American context, it has evolved to mean racist rapists who want to destroy the environment.

The term "left wing" has a genuine history. It started in the French Revolution, where deputies were ordered from right to left to the degree they were against the monarchy. There was no "right wing" because the monarchists weren't represented. As the revolution radicalized, one party was supplanted by another further left, that is, more stern in its approach to the king until finally, they beheaded him.

The term "right-wing" comes out of the Communist resistance (in the west) to McCarthyism. It attributes all these evil motives to people who wanted to make the West safe from Russian imperialism. If you weren't a communist, you must be a Nazi.
That was the thinking.

The concept of "right-wing" was pure Saul Alinsky thinking -- it was used to demonize from the start.

It's a very powerful cultural concept, so powerful, in fact, that American non-Communist left (the Democrats) took it up in the battle to take down segregation. It is NOT a term that comes out of everyday life. It is transmitted almost entirely in our institutions of higher learning. It acts as an ideological bulwark against critics of socialism. It has been highly effective, as you can gauge from how often the term comes up in socialist vrs the mainstream arguments.

If someone calls you a right winger, they are implying that you are an heir of the Nazis, at least in your thinking.

Culturally speaking, the Nazis are about as pure an embodiment of evil that we can imagine. And people who think that government should balance its budget are associated with them. It is the ultimate 'dog whistle'.

I am wondering -- is this tool of the left losing its power? Think of it, the Democrat and Republican candidates are both good representatives of the old, pre-Trump parties. What would be more natural than for the Democrat to start raising these stereotypes as the election got closer? But what would be more unexpected than its effectiveness to be nullified?

It might even be that going extreme with these stereotypes offends people and encourages them to (more likely) not vote, or (less likely) change who they vote for. It might also encourage a bunch of people who don't normally vote to vote the other way.

The problem for the Democrats is if they abandon their anti-Trump progressive stance, what do they have left?

They have reflexively painted their opposition as a bunch of crazies for decades. That have doubled their usual efforts with Trump. You can see this in the aura of meanings that surround the concept of "right wing". What are the first associations that come to mind when you say "right wing"? Or, as they often say, "hard right"?

The Democrats are suffering from the same issue they had nearly a year ago.

They can't fathom why they lost the Presidency;
Rather than spending the next two and four years camping out in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and even Minnesota & New Hampshire that were won with 1.5 and 0.5% margin respectively and understand why you lost voters and what their priorities are.

The consensus amongst the pundits seems to be that if you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016;
You were either a bigot or too stupid to understand her platform.

Now you are going back to those States all of whom have Democrat Senators up for election in 2018 and rather than asking for their vote in exchange for addressing their concerns you are almost asking for them to repent their sin and will embrace them just this once if they vote Democrat.

That is a terrible way try and get elected.

Virginia and New Jersey become either validation or the end of the road of this approach IMO

Last edited by cosmostein on Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total

The problem for the Democrats is if they abandon their anti-Trump progressive stance, what do they have left?

They have reflexively painted their opposition as a bunch of crazies for decades. That have doubled their usual efforts with Trump. You can see this in the aura of meanings that surround the concept of "right wing". What are the first associations that come to mind when you say "right wing"? Or, as they often say, "hard right"?

The right is associated with the Nazis, but in the North American context, it has evolved to mean racist rapists who want to destroy the environment.

The term "left wing" has a genuine history. It started in the French Revolution, where deputies were ordered from right to left to the degree they were against the monarchy. There was no "right wing" because the monarchists weren't represented. As the revolution radicalized, one party was supplanted by another further left, that is, more stern in its approach to the king until finally, they beheaded him.

The term "right-wing" comes out of the Communist resistance (in the west) to McCarthyism. It attributes all these evil motives to people who wanted to make the West safe from Russian imperialism. If you weren't a communist, you must be a Nazi.
That was the thinking.

The concept of "right-wing" was pure Saul Alinsky thinking -- it was used to demonize from the start.

It's a very powerful cultural concept, so powerful, in fact, that American non-Communist left (the Democrats) took it up in the battle to take down segregation. It is NOT a term that comes out of everyday life. It is transmitted almost entirely in our institutions of higher learning. It acts as an ideological bulwark against critics of socialism. It has been highly effective, as you can gauge from how often the term comes up in socialist vrs the mainstream arguments.

If someone calls you a right winger, they are implying that you are an heir of the Nazis, at least in your thinking.

Culturally speaking, the Nazis are about as pure an embodiment of evil that we can imagine. And people who think that government should balance its budget are associated with them. It is the ultimate 'dog whistle'.

I am wondering -- is this tool of the left losing its power? Think of it, the Democrat and Republican candidates are both good representatives of the old, pre-Trump parties. What would be more natural than for the Democrat to start raising these stereotypes as the election got closer? But what would be more unexpected than its effectiveness to be nullified?

It might even be that going extreme with these stereotypes offends people and encourages them to (more likely) not vote, or (less likely) change who they vote for. It might also encourage a bunch of people who don't normally vote to vote the other way.

And if that's the case ... it's opening on a new day in America.

your post raises some interesting points although I don't have time to go thru all of them . but I agree liberals are mostly resorting to claiming there opponents are too right wing as a way to hold onto power

it could be a sign of a difficult political cycle south of the border where rather poor democratic candidates find a way to get elected on the basis that there not republicans . much like Kathleen Wynne got elected in 2014 , we got a horrible premier cause she was able to convince liberals and swing voters the conservative candidate would of been worse

as for Virginia it might be a while or late tonight before we know for certain who wins , I've seen races there before that look promising for the republicans only to lose when the heavily democratic suburbs come in later , but even the fact its so close is a bad sign for the democrats as it really shouldn't of been

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum